In Maryland Senate race, two Democrats with very different Israel stances

WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, April 26, Maryland Democratic voters will choose between two hopefuls running to replace retiring US Senator Barbara Mikulski, the longest-serving female senator in American history. While Reps. Chris Van Hollen and Donna Edwards each hold similar, if not the same, positions on most issues, they differ dramatically on one particular area of foreign policy: Israel.

“It’s probably one of the strongest contrasts that I’ve ever seen in a congressional or Senate race,” Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt, founder of Congregation B’nai Tzedek in Potomac, Maryland, and a leader in the state’s Jewish community, told The Times of Israel.

The contentious primary pits against each other two House members who represent suburban districts outside the nation’s capital. Though both are widely recognized as bona fide progressives, they have solidified reputations distinct from one another.

Van Hollen, 57, has been commonly billed an “establishment” Democrat, having served as chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, special assistant to former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and ranking member of the House Budget Committee. (Full disclosure: This reporter interned in Congressman Van Hollen’s district office in the summer of 2013.)

Edwards, also 57, is seen as an “outsider” Democrat, willing to challenge her own party’s orthodoxy, and offers an opportunity to make the Senate more diverse; if elected, she would be only the second African American woman to serve in that chamber.

Over the years, their records in the House of Representatives have reflected a significant difference between their views on Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians, the US -Israel relationship and other regional challenges that pose a threat to Israel’s security.

Most recently, more than 90 percent of House members signed a joint letter to President Barack Obama urging him to reject a possible upcoming resolution at the UN Security Council. The resolution may condemn Israel’s West Bank policies and delineate the framework of a final status two-state outcome.

Congressional critics of this action call it a “one-sided initiative” that seeks to impose a solution on the two sides and enables the Palestinian leadership to circumvent direct negotiations with its Israeli counterpart.

“We share your frustration with the lack of significant progress toward a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” the letter to Obama said, but “only the parties themselves can agree to end their conflict through a negotiated resolution.”

Van Hollen was among the 394 Democrat and Republican legislators who signed the letter. Edwards was among the 41 who did not.

On the records

 

Such a divergence between the two is reflective of a larger pattern. In the past, Van Hollen has consistently signed similar letters and voted in favor of similar resolutions to come before the House, which did not receive the same support from Edwards.

In 2010, he signed a joint letter urging Obama to impose further sanctions on Iran, whereas Edwards did not; in 2015, he signed a joint letter to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas urging him to condemn violence against Israelis amid the recent wave of stabbings, whereas Edwards did not.

Van Hollen also voted in favor of a 2009 House resolution condemning the UN Goldstone Report, which alleged Israel committed war crimes by deliberately targeting civilians during its 2009 war in the Gaza Strip (a claim that was later retracted, in 2011, by the report’s main author, South African jurist Richard Goldstone). Edwards voted against issuing such a statement.

On other occasions, Edwards has refrained from casting an unequivocal “no” vote on such resolutions, instead voting “present.” She exercised this option for a 2009 resolution that supported Israel’s right to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks during Operation Cast Lead; for a 2011 resolution that criticized the PA for seeking unilateral statehood and urged the US to suspend its aid to the PA over its unity agreement with Hamas; and for a 2012 resolution that reiterated US support for the defense of Israel.

Van Hollen voted in favor of all three resolutions, and co-sponsored two of them. He also co-sponsored and voted in favor of a 2013 bill imposing sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. Edwards was one of 17 Democrats to vote no.

Edwards’ voting record has drawn frustration from many in Maryland’s pro-Israel community, including Van Hollen supporter Behnam Dayanim, a Washington-area attorney involved with local Jewish organizations.

“I think Donna Edwards feels no inherent empathy toward Israel, and as a result, it drives her to be skeptical of any resolution, bill or measure that, in any way, seems to embrace an Israeli point of view,” he told The Times of Israel.

“I mean, the issues that divide Van Hollen and Edwards on Israel are not Likud issues, they’re not right-wing issues,” he went on. “These are mainstream, pro-Israel issues that the vast majority of the American Jewish community supports, and the vast majority of the larger American political community supports. And Donna’s just not there.”

Edwards, however, takes issue with attempts to classify her as an opponent of the Jewish state. In a statement to The Times of Israel, she said: “I am a staunch supporter of Israel and fully back America’s commitment to Israel’s security. I’ve traveled throughout Israel and seen her promise and the threats to her existence.”

Citing her support for an emergency appropriations bill that gave Israel $225 million to resupply its Iron Dome missile defense system during Operation Protective Edge and the 2014 US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, she said she was committed to Israel’s security and a two-state outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“We need to ensure the State of Israel as a secure Jewish democratic state by making a two-state solution a reality, with the recognition of an independent Palestinian state that respects and recognizes the State of Israel,” Edwards said.

For Edwards’ pro-Israel backers like Duchy Trachtenberg, a former member of Maryland’s Montgomery County Council, indeed, her often critical stance is an expression of support.

“I know what her votes are and I’m comfortable supporting her because I believe she understands that for any kind of meaningful peace in that region, there needs to be a fair and compassionate two-state solution, which is what will protect the endurance of a strong Israel,” Trachtenberg said. “I would never support a candidate who didn’t believe that,” she added.

Trachtenberg also said that Edwards’ record on Israel, along with her history advocating other issues like domestic violence prevention, demonstrate “Jewish values of compassion and justice” and “define her willingness to speak truth to power.”

Van Hollen, for his part, has not been totally uncritical of the Jewish state.

During the Second Lebanon War, in 2006, he penned a letter to then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice stating that “a continuation of the bombing campaign [in Lebanon] as it is being carried out is against the interests of Israel and the United States” and that he was concerned about the mounting civilian death toll.

After pro-Israel activists criticized the move, Van Hollen sought to clarify his position without retracting what he wrote, insisting his letter was meant to be critical of the Bush administration and did not suggest Israel’s 34-day campaign against Hezbollah was without justification.

“He’s not a down-the-line supporter of whatever Israel does,” Dayanim said. “But when it comes to fundamental issues about Israel, he is there and by its side.”

J Street backs them both

 

Progressive Democrats who each supported the Iran nuclear deal, both Van Hollen and Edwards are classified as “on the street” candidates by the liberal pro-Israel organization J Street. The designation does not constitute an endorsement but acknowledges the candidates each support the basic platform of a two-state peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and the preferred use of diplomacy over force.

It also means that J Street supporters can donate to either candidate through the J Street PAC, directly through its website.

In May 2015, shortly after Edwards began to take heat for her votes on Israel, including her voting against sanctioning Iran, J Street announced its endorsement of Edwards, a longtime ally who it vigorously supported in her first congressional campaign, in 2008.

The group’s founder and president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, released a statement calling Edwards “a leader in the fight for peace and security for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.”

But in August 2015, shortly after Van Hollen voiced his support for the Iran nuclear accord, J Street said it was also backing him. “Representative Van Hollen’s recent statement in support of the nuclear agreement with Iran is illustrative of the studied and serious consideration he brings to matters integral to the shared U.S. and Israeli interests in peace and security in the Middle East,” Dan Kalik, J Street’s vice president of political affairs, said in a statement.

“Whoever is the nominee would be an excellent senator on our core issues,” Ben-Ami elaborated to The Washington Post. “It made sense not to endorse for or against either of them.”

Since then, each has been listed as “on the street,” giving neither the advantage. The shift took some political wind away from Edwards’ back; she had been criticizing Van Hollen for “holding his finger to the air” by not taking a position on the nuclear agreement immediately.

Edwards came out for the accord between Tehran and the P5+1 world powers on July 15, the day after it was announced. Van Hollen announced his support for the deal on July 30.

While the race’s polling has remained tight, Van Hollen recently plunged ahead of Edwards in a series of polls. Real Clear Politics has Van Hollen with an average lead of six percent.

With Marylanders set to vote on Tuesday, many in the pro-Israel and Jewish community are watching closely. “It’s a very stark contrast between the two,” Weinblatt said. “So I think the stakes in this race are particularly high.”